Handicapping with software

[dav4463]

I don't use software, but it seems like there should be only so many ways to analyze a race. Some software will hit, some will miss, but if it is decent software...it should be able to hit it's share of winners. To me, it is no different than a decent paper and pencil method except that it is faster and you can look at more tracks in less time.

Am I off base on this?

If you use software; I would think that the choice of HOW TO BET is much more important than how many winners the software puts on top.

Wouldn't any decent software point you to contenders just as a paper and pencil method will point to contenders? The software advantage would be that record keeping is easier.

For example, if you follow a good handicapper who uses software and you use his selections and handicap the selector.....you can get good results I would think by knowing how well the selector's software picks winners. You are in fact, handicapping the software instead of the horses....but if you get results.....why not?

Any thoughts on this?

[green80]

I think you are correct. Software is just a faster way to do any pen and paper method. Most of this software you can set to analyze races way you want to.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave,

That is precisely my goal with HSH, except that the software (HSH) provides several different handicapping approaches at once. So, imagine having several "advisors" - each playing a different strategy - and looking between them for "good plays."

Dave

[cmoore]

Software is just a tool that can help your handicapping imo...Learn to read what everything on the pps mean first..Then venture out and look up some software that will speed things up and likely make handicapping a little easier..

[RichieP]

Software is just a tool that can help your handicapping imo...Learn to read what everything on the pps mean first..Then venture out and look up some software that will speed things up and likely make handicapping a little easier..

I agree 100%. Software doesn't "pick" horses.

It presents the user with information that he/she uses to make (hopefully) intelligent wagering decisions with.

Ted Craven's RDSS software is a nice package that allows users a lot of flexible "ways to play".

Along those lines I happened to make a video yesterday about a "Hat Bradshaw" matchup type method using the software on races that ran today at Hollywood Park. The races were done well in advance and shows the MANY different ways that RDSS can be used by cappers of all abilities.

Here is the link to the vid for anyone interested.
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5623
It was lots of fun and as you see in the video a very EASY and RELAXED way to play working races well in advance of them running.

RDSS is a very nice "helper" for cappers of all abilities and definitely respects the individual users input.
:)

[njcurveball]

I don't use software, but it seems like there should be only so many ways to analyze a race. Some software will hit, some will miss, but if it is decent software...it should be able to hit it's share of winners.

Software does not "hit" winners. Just like a toolbox does not build a house. A competent user will use the correct tools in the right spots to make the best dollar and cents decision.

For example, a number of pieces of software had the Derby winner highly rated. HTR had it as a $$ (live longshot), #1 first fraction, razor sharp, and a few other positive factors. I have not heard where anyone with HTR made a killing though. No $100 win bets, no $50 straight exactas, etc. Perhaps some did and are keeping it quiet, if so kudos.

The point being that the "tools" were there to bet the horse. The value was there, but most of us have too much "conventional wisdom" to trust what the software spits out.

One of the biggest errors I saw with the Sartin group was someone falling in love with a horse and picking a paceline that automatically got it on top. This was easy to spot, even in the monthly follow up. A longshot with a large total energy edge is going to come up on top of any of their programs. In fact when I was with the group and saw someone pick a line like that, I told them not even bother to turn on the computer.

Software today has 4 major components and none of them include an output telling you what to bet.

1.) Does it have factors not available to the General Public
2.) Does it have a reliable way to assess horses strengths and weaknesses.
3.) Does it have good support and a cooperative User community.
4.) Does it have a reliable way to test the results. <--- just thought of a 4th

If you have all 4 of them, you have good software.

Jim

[dav4463]

Interesting replies. I've been thinking of "taking the plunge" into software, but I'm worried that too much information will make me second guess myself too much. How do you avoid that?

[Overlay]

Interesting replies. I've been thinking of "taking the plunge" into software, but I'm worried that too much information will make me second guess myself too much. How do you avoid that?

However much information a program uses or presents, as long as it assimilates it into a reliable "bottom-line" prediction of each horse's true chance of winning the race, that's what would matter most to me.

[cmoore]

Interesting replies. I've been thinking of "taking the plunge" into software, but I'm worried that too much information will make me second guess myself too much. How do you avoid that?

I agree with too much information could make you second guess yourself..That's one reason I got off the ultimate pps..Too many running lines for me. I do use the summary sheets sometimes and print the pps the way I want them...That's why I keep it simple and just use procaps at tsnhorse...It's pretty basic..I like to compare pace, race and class ratings on one screen..Also speed and late pace ratings..There's one screen that has about 15 different categories..Just right click and it's right there..The software has horses to watch..Because it does create models but I hardly ever pay attention to them..

Those expensive data files that cost 5-14 dollars a card is crazy imo..

[JustRalph]

this thread seriously shortchanges some very good software

There are hundreds of items of info that cannot be derived from the form and paper and pencil..........but can be using software. Many of them very valuable nuggets.

I am only slightly familiar with HSH, but Dave is making the understatement of the year in this thread. HSH is good stuff and does exactly what Dave says..........but he is understating it a bit.

I use Jcapper now. There are things I know that I could never know without it. There are many many UDM's I have developed that have taught me what is important and what is not.........and none of them can be "tested" using just the form and a pencil.

HTR is good stuff too. I used it just a very short while..........but It was great too.

You guys who talk about having too much info......... don't know what you are missing sometimes.

I suggest you guys look into all the software I mentioned and more. There is some damn fine stuff out there. It makes a difference.

[46zilzal]

One of the biggest errors I saw with the Sartin group was someone falling in love with a horse and picking a paceline that automatically got it on top. This was easy to spot, even in the monthly follow up. A longshot with a large total energy edge is going to come up on top of any of their programs. In fact when I was with the group and saw someone pick a line like that, I told them not even bother to turn on the computer.

you and many others are making the quantum lead that everyone who uses Sartin software follows the same guidelines and NOTHING could be further from the truth

[Tom]

There is not "top" in many programs.
There is no "pick".

[njcurveball]

you and many others are making the quantum lead that everyone who uses Sartin software follows the same guidelines and NOTHING could be further from the truth

I see you are still using big words you know nothing about. I guess you mean quantum leap, which is defined as "quantum leap has come to mean an abrupt change or "step change", especially an advance or augmentation."

That has absolutely nothing with what I said, but reading has never been your strong suit.

What I said was that people using the Sartin programs were picking pacelines that reflected a HUGE effort. When you go 3 or 4 or more races back and find a big win or a race where an also ran actually was competitive, it does not take any special program to make that horse come up on top.

I do look forward to reading your posts citing your big wins after the fact, as I sometimes forget how much of an edge it is to actually handicap before a race is run.

[njcurveball]

I'm worried that too much information will make me second guess myself too much. How do you avoid that?

You make a very good point here and it is one that Sartin often mentioned. It is also the reason that many users of his advanced programs started doing better when they tried just using the Phase 1, total pace ratings.

It depends more on the person, than the program. I played baseball with a guy who was a great hitter, one night I tried to explain he needed to close his stance. He sincerely did not know what I was talking about. I let it go, because more information to him would have yielded a worse result.

The Beyer numbers were great for people since there was one number and everyone can compare one number.

There is no one right program for everyone. It is more finding one that fits your handicapping style, making sure it has output that you can trust, and a good user group and support to help you through the learning curve and the usual slumps.

[Tom]

I do look forward to reading your posts citing your big wins after the fact, as I sometimes forget how much of an edge it is to actually handicap before a race is run.

Go over to Pace and Cap - he posts in Selections every day, in real time. He also posted in detail how he gets his pace lines. No mysteries. Credit where it is due.

[DJofSD]

I don't use software, but it seems like there should be only so many ways to analyze a race. Some software will hit, some will miss, but if it is decent software...it should be able to hit it's share of winners. To me, it is no different than a decent paper and pencil method except that it is faster and you can look at more tracks in less time.

Am I off base on this?

If you use software; I would think that the choice of HOW TO BET is much more important than how many winners the software puts on top.

Wouldn't any decent software point you to contenders just as a paper and pencil method will point to contenders? The software advantage would be that record keeping is easier.

For example, if you follow a good handicapper who uses software and you use his selections and handicap the selector.....you can get good results I would think by knowing how well the selector's software picks winners. You are in fact, handicapping the software instead of the horses....but if you get results.....why not?

Any thoughts on this?
Computers and software are tools. And GIGO applies to both the data and the software.

A good program will be written in a way that will aid you. If it confuses you or makes you spend more time dealing with the computer and the software than it saves you solving the handicapping problem then it is a hinderance, not a help.

I would put handicapping software into two camps: it either "picks" a winner or it presents you with different comparisons of today's race then allows you to evaluate who are the contenders and likely winners.

Programs that select the winner are written from a specific bias or perspective. Likely the formula or algorithm is not documented. You use the program as designed. As long as you have some idea of what are the right races for it then you can use it with some level of confidence.

Programs that provide you with a myriad of ways to handicap a race can be very flexible. But they require you to do some work. Time spent learning how to use the program will be rewarded. Programs like those offered by Dave or Jeff will allow you to handicap the races from maiden claimers to Breeder's Cup races. With those programs you decide what approach you want to take to solve the puzzle.

[Jeff P]

Software today has 4 major components and none of them include an output telling you what to bet.

1.) Does it have factors not available to the General Public
2.) Does it have a reliable way to assess horses strengths and weaknesses.
3.) Does it have good support and a cooperative User community.
4.) Does it have a reliable way to test the results. <--- just thought of a 4th

If you have all 4 of them, you have good software.
I almost agree with this. <G>

IMHO, one of the more useful things added to JCapper is output using specific parameters (that are user researchable and user "set-able") to point out WHEN you have a good bet and when you don't.

IOW, the software gives the user the ability to do his or her own R&D - with the end result being that on race day the software is able to take the user's own plays and suggest intelligent play or pass decisions about those plays back to the user.


-jp

.

[Sinner369]

To Me:

Software only measures tangible factors..........factors that can be measured, read, seen.........like pace, time, running style, statistics associated with jockeys, trainers...........

But it does not measure intangibles like hunches, feelings, how a horse looks on post parade.........

In other words (to me) software can measure the logical aspects of the Game and if you a logical person........you should be using software.


sinner

[njcurveball]

Go over to Pace and Cap - he posts in Selections every day, in real time. He also posted in detail how he gets his pace lines. No mysteries. Credit where it is due.

Thanks for the tip. Comments like these are really no help to me though. All tbey say is the poster wants to get enough horses in his post to have the winner. And the race in question had only 9 horses and he managed in include the $3.60 winner in his 5 horses. GREAT JOB! You go on being his biggest fan and cheerleader. :ThmbDown:

Even more curious was he took 5 of the 9 horses and still could not find the right one who would have the lead. Yeah, IMPRESSIVE! :lol:



wide open http://paceandcap.com/forums/images/smilies/4.jpg http://paceandcap.com/forums/images/smilies/6.jpg http://paceandcap.com/forums/images/smilies/8.jpg http://paceandcap.com/forums/images/smilies/2.jpg even 7 might get the lead all alone FOR A BIT

[DeadHeat]

I keep seeing references to paceandcap.com on this forum as above but when I go there in IE I get a 501/505 error and when I use Mozilla I get a DNS lookup error.

Does anyone have any ideas?

DH

[DeadHeat]

Well, paceandcap.com is now coming up for me.

[raybo]

However much information a program uses or presents, as long as it assimilates it into a reliable "bottom-line" prediction of each horse's true chance of winning the race, that's what would matter most to me.

Obviously you already know how to handicap. Why not use Excel to automate your method. Not familiar with Excel? No problem, Excel people abound here. Just holler.

[DeanT]

My 2 - I always thought software was mysterious and a weird way to play. But I am a convert, simply because I was wrong with my original assumptions. To me, it does not give me a "horse to play", it gives me a few possibles every race. Then I look at the PP/paddock, odds, the pace of the race, some trainer stats, and so on. Since you tend to get easy to use pace numbers and closing numbers you can tailor your play to a specific track bias, hopefully whittling your play down even more. Out of all that, I hope that one or two of the horses meet some sort of odds threshold and then play accordingly.

Because several of the programs out there are hooked up to the live tote, the gambling side of the equation is married nicely to the ability side of the horses, as well, which can offer some great insight that I would not get with PP's only. As an at home player it is something I would not be able to live without. I think I would play the stock market or something with my spare time. When I go to the track now I just play a few dollars for fun, and try and have a nice social time; I do not go there to bet seriously without all my tools.

But it does not measure intangibles like hunches, feelings, how a horse looks on post parade.........

I play those all the time with software Sinner. If I see a horse on his toes, saw the last trouble line I have a hunch he is going to go hard and use his speed this week, I will simply double check the software to see if this strategy looks like a winning one. Then if odds are fair, I go to it.